Conservator Google Feed

Meta

RSS feedburner feed

Archives

Thomas Jefferson would have soiled his knickerbockers.The author of our Declaration of Independence had a deep and unwavering belief that the role of the Federal Government should be to provide protection to the Citizenry, and that’s it.It should not be there to meddle in the affairs of business and finance.He was firmly against that.He believed in the agricultural economy of the time, and he believed that the Federal Government should play no role in the development, burdening, sustenance, direction, destruction or regulation of the businesses and mercantile affairs of the citizenry, corporate or otherwise.

Now, the Federal Government is preparing to embark on one of the largest spending sprees of all of its history to provide reproductive (and repro-destructive services to every county or parish in the country, especially where a woman has to cross state lines to receive an abortion.)

There’s a problem with this from a Jeffersonian standpoint.The problem goes back to a Sangeristic eugenicist argument.It goes like this:‘There are many poor woman who are near destitution, who have no visible menas of support, who live in depressing circumstances, and they need termination as an option, to keep them out of the pits of dismay, the depressing poverty which will hold them down, and destroy their lives’.So what’s the matter with that argument?It sounds compassionate , in its way.It was Margaret Sanger’s argument.Here’s what’s the matter: The Federal Government is spending billions to buoy up unions, billions to buttress car manufacturers, trillions to finance the budget of states which are supposed to be sovereign, all of which is diametrically opposed to what Mr. Jefferson believed in, and yet this poor woman in Appalachia, perhaps, is destitute and has no chance to free herself, and to be able to truly do so [it’s supposed] must consider terminating a pregnancy. Now think about this:If we have billions to give car manufacturers, that woman should never be destitute.Before abortion should even be considered as an option to ‘free her from the dregs of her penury’, her sustenance and provision, with those same dollars, should have been an option.Maybe even to dig into some of those dollars that were handed out – in un-Jeffersonian way – to AIG.The argument that abortion provides a door of hope to people in said horrible circumstances should not even be an argument in a country with money to give to AIG.

It’s what makes the sin of abortion so exceedingly sinful, and more sinful than it was a year ago, more sinful than it was 10 years ago.How can it be more sinful?It’s more sinful because the money is there to obviate the argument for it.The money is there to show that the Sangeristic argument is truly specious.Margaret Sanger, supposedly saw a woman dying of a botched back-alley abortion, and she felt that people in the throes of poverty should never have to have a back alley abortion.The problem with this, is that in a country with a trillion dollars to hand out to various spending gimmicks in one fall swoop, there should not be a pregnant woman in the throes of poverty with nowhere to turn.This is what makes the sin so sinful.If we were a poor nation with no means to help itself, hopelessly bankrupt, and without any respect or trading chips in the world, the sin of abortion would still be a sin, but not as it is in a country where the Sanger argument has no reason to exist.

For the record, Margaret Sanger, the acclaimed founder of planned parenthood was an outspoken eugenicist, speaking in front of the KKK and other such organizations. She was very vocal about the fact that she believed the poor, and indigent and members of society that seemed unable to rise to the top, polluted the gene pool, and they should not propogate.She was in favor of the sterilization of such members of society, particularlyblacks and poor European immigrants, of which there were many at the turn of the century.

Jefferson believed that Federal Intervention in the private business sector should be non-existent, except for in matters of treason or defense. He distinguished the business affairs of individuals from the individuals themselves. He expressed that a Government must exist for the advancement of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the individuals, and if it begins to be destructive in that respect, that Government must cease to exist.Yet to provide for the financial well-being of giant corporations, while there are poor people entrapped by the poverty that emerges when their means of sustenance is taken away, runs contrary to the Words of Jefferson.To then proceed with an agenda that would finance, even in part, even in a small part, which it cannot avoid, the ambitions and concepts of eugenicists is in such argument against the Words of Jefferson that the violation against what we stand to exist for as a nation, and have been defined by that great forefather to exist for is impossible to ignore.